1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preamble

Migration is known as shifting of an individual, or a group of individuals, from one

place to another, and the gradual settling down, more or less permanently in a new

place. Webster's New World Dictionary defines migration as "the act or instance of
moving from one place, region and community to settle in another in search of work".
From history, it is clear that people belonging to different races have moved from one
place to another for food, shelter or other various reasons. Thus, migration can be
referred to as an induced process as old as mankind itself. Though the main factors
that induce migration may be only a few, the consequences are speculative in the
beginning as the individual or a group has to face the situation in a new place.

The process of migration involves primarily, necessitating, facilitating, and

accommodative factors. While food, shelter and employment opportunities are the
fundamental necessitating factors, the drive for obtaining better social, economic
and cultural gains also induces migration. The existence and availability of anticipated
things, or opportunities, in a new locality and accessibility, either directly or
through certain medium facilitates migration. Conditions like hospitality or
congenial set up in a new locality also often determines migration. Thus, migration
is a complex process symptomatic of basic economic and social change and associated
with complex social and psychological problems. Kalin and Berry (1980) have stated that
migration is pragmatic and universal and that it has two major forms viz., Internal and

International. ‘Internal migration’ is commonly referred to as the shifting of an

individual, or a group, from one rural area to another, to an urban area, or vice versa
and from an urban area to another. Shifting from one country to another is referred

to as ‘international migration’.

I
1.2 Migration scene in India

Indians are thought to be less mobile as compared to people from most western countries
and the U.S. (Davis 1951 and Zacharaiahl964). Davis has observed, on the basis of the
1931 census, that only 3.6% of the Indian population (Table 1.1) has lived outside the
state while more than about 22.5% of the native population of the U.S. has lived
outside the state. However, in recent years, the mobility of Indians has been
progressively increasing (Bose, 1978). From Table-1.2, it is clear that, in 1981, rural -
rural migration was 65.2%, rural urban 17.7%, urban-urban 11.1% and urban-rural
6.0%. It is also clear from Table-1.2 that the rural-rural migration has reduced while
rural - urban and urban-rural has increased, although, the rural-rural migration in
terms of volume, dominates other type of migration streams in India.

According to Nair (1986) who estimated the rate of migration in India between 1971-
81, the states with highest immigrants were Haryana (3.24%), Maharashtra (2.88%)
and West Bengal (1.71%), while the states with highest emigrants were U.P. (1.8%)
and Karnataka (1.43%). According to scholars like Zacharaiah( 1964), Mitra (1967),
Gupta & Sen (1968), Kaur (1971), Premi (1976), Singh (1980) and the U.N. (1961)
migratory flow has been from the area of limited economic opportunities and related
social aspects to the developed and fast developing areas where immigrants can
expect greater pecuniary gains, and consequently, a better living and socio-economic
status.

In India, where more than 70% of the population is engaged in agriculture and allied
activities, the predominance of rural-rural migration cannot be over emphasized.
Modernisation in the agricultural sector could be considered as the main reason for rural
- rural migration which dominates the scene. Generally, it is the agricultural labourer
who migrates more. Migration of agricultural labour gives rise to a different set of
problems related to the condition of work, nature of their exploitation by the middle
men and their relationship with the farmers (Rao 1986). Migrant labourers are

2
commonly exposed to the problems of adjustment, non co-operation and cool
behavioural treatment from the locals and experience feelings of relative deprivation
(Arora & Kumar 1980, Russell and Straclan 1980 and Rank and Voss 1982).

1.3 Studies on migration

Numerous studies have been conducted all over the world on the migration of people from
time to time. The studies which cover some aspects of migration have laid emphasis

on:

• The characteristics of the immigrants,

• The determinants of migration,
• The problem of immigrant adjustment in the new socio-economic milieu
and
• The method of recruitment and wage payment.

Therefore the survey of literature has been presented in accordance with the
aspects covered by each study.

1.3.1 Characteristics of immigrants

Most of the early studies concentrate on the social characteristics of population like,
age, sex, marital status, caste, literacy, family size, family type and the occupation
which have an association with migration or induce it.

Age

Studies by Peterson (1969), Jansen (1970), Schultz (1971), Gist (1955), Russel and
Strachan (1980), Zacharaiah(1964, 1968), Bora (1987), Narina (1972), Sharma (1982),
Bulsara (1965), Dhesi and Gumbar (1982), Hamsaleelavathy (1970), Kayasta &

3
Prakash (1971), and Parameshwarappa (1981) have highlighted the fact that a
majority of migrants are youths, mainly in the age group 15-34. During this age,
individuals have higher migratory motives (Heenan 1981, Khan 1981, Gupta 1988,
Illsley 1970, Belhun 1971, Lakshamaiah 1974, Balakrishna 1976, Arora and Kumar
1980, Singh and Yadava 1981, Krishenbaum 1971, Prasad Rao 1970, Mathew and Nair
1978, Upreti 1981 and Dasagupta & Laishley 1975 Katti and Hasalkarl971). Thomas
(1938) has also opined that youths are more migratory in nature than other age groups.
According to Tarver and Gurley (1964) young adults show more migratory behaviour
and move further than older persons.

Studies in developing countries have shown that migrants in general are likely to be
in the young, working age group of 15-34 years(Chamratrithirong et.al 1979, Hugo
1982, Standing 1985, and Prothero & Chapman 1985). Shaw (1975), while giving an
account of different studies conducted in different parts of the US, Chile, Ghana,
Rhodesia, U.K, France, Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Taiwan has supported the age group
selectivity of 20 - 29 years.

However, contrary to the above statements, in Sri Lanka there is neither a strong
selectivity of dominance of young people nor the dominance of a particular group
(ESCAP 1980). Swanson et. al, (1979) opine that the age of migrants was negatively
correlated with the willingness to move. Thus, it is evident that the age factor has some
influence on migration.

Sex

Ravenstein's (1889) generalisation about sex selectivity in migration states that

females appear to predominate in short distance migration. This holds good only in case
of rural - rural migration due to a feministic reason i.e., marriage. Premi (1986),
Mitra (1967) and Singh (1978) observe that in intra-district migration females are
predominant, while in inter district and inter-state migration it is dominated by

4
males. A survey, conducted by the International Institute for Population Studies in
four nations, on internal migration, has indicated that in Japan (1950 - 55) and the
Philippines (1939 - 40), a majority of migrants were females who migrated due to
availability of work in light industries, while in India, marriage is the main cause for
female migration.

According to Zachariah (1964) internal migration in India is highly selective towards

males, while it is not so in Western Countries. Davis (1977) and Zachariah (1964)
observe that in many Asian countries males are more inclined towards rural - urban
migration. Singh (1978) and Premi (1980) in their studies have observed that the
number of female migrants was more than double that of males in rural - rural and inter
district migration. Further, it is observed that as the distance increases, the ratio of
migration falls sharply.

Rele (1969) has opined that in case of male migration, the economic factors are more
important than social ones. Premi (1980) and Jain (1979) have observed that in some
cases of female migration (rural - rural) economic factors are also responsible. Scholars
like Agarwal (1968), Bose (1965) Narain (1975), Bhende (1976), Premi (1976), Kumar
and Sharma (1979) have also upheld the view that there is preponderance of women in
migration stream due to marriage.

Marital status

Various studies by scholars like Chauhan (1966), Zachariah (1968), Dhesi and Gumbar
(1982), Joshi (1989), Klinger (1986) and Ledent and Liaw(1986) have indicated that a
majority of the migrants are young and unmarried. This has also been supported by
Hugo (1986) in Hungary and the U.S. Bureau of Census (1985), and in countries like
Belgium, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Italy and Japan a similar status has been found.

5
Contrary to the above statement, Saxena (1977), Grewal et.al (1979), Chatterjee
(1983), Upreti (1981), Premi (1976), Khan (1981), Gupta (1988), Raju (1989),
Parameshwarappa (1981), Girald et.al(1970) and Hollingsworth(1970) have opined a
majority of migrants were married. However, Sharma (1982) in his study has noticed
that, due to the custom of child marriages in the place of origin, there can be a
preponderance of married persons in the migration streams.

According to Kamath (1914), Chandrashekhar (1950), Davis (1951), Gosal (1961),

D. Souza (1966), Suprunovich (1971), and Mujumdar and Mujumdar (1978) early
marriage has hindered migration.

Caste

Persons belonging to a particular caste which is no longer functionally integrated into the
village economy, are more mobile than those who are integrated into the village
economy (Mishra 1952). According to Mishra's view, many low caste people migrate
from rural areas to other places with a view to liberating themselves from age-old
social discriminations, and to conceal their low social status in the hierarchy of the
caste system (Mujumdar & Mujumdar 1978).

Domination of people belonging to the lower castes in migration has been studied by
Sharma (1982), Bhakoo (1978), Grewal and Sidhu (1979), Arora & Kumar (1980),
Gupta (1980) and Hegde (1996) and that of intermediatory castes by Gupta (1988).
However, a greater number of people belonging to the upper castes being involved in
migration has been revealed in studies conducted by Mayere (1973), Joshi (1989), Gist
(1955), Saxena (1977) D’Souza (1977), Bora (1987), Ernes (1954), Joshi (1957), Ernes
and Scwab (1964) and Connell et. al (1976).

However, Parameshwarappa (1981) has observed, in his study on urban areas in

Karnataka, that no particular caste group dominates in migration.

6
There has been no concrete evidence about the dominance of a particular caste group
during migration. However, it is evident from many studies, that caste is instrumental in
causing differential migration, the effectiveness of which depends upon the set-up in
which the migrants are living.

Literacy

Gupta (1988) and Hegde (1996) in their study, observe that three fourths of the
migrants are illiterate. Sen (1960) has stated that a majority of the immigrants in urban
areas are educationally most backward. Lambert (1963), Grewal (1979), Arora &
Kumar (1980) and Garkcvieh (1983) have revealed that the migrant's educational level,
in general, was low.

Caldwell (1969) has observed that, in Ghana, migration dramatically increases on

the completion of primary education. Wyon and Garden (1971) in a study of
Punjab, observe that the completion of the third grade (before, and of primary level) was
a critical stage associated with increased rates of migration. Harvey (1968), in a study
in Colombia, has observed that persons with little or no education are more likely to
be rural - rural migrants.

Bogue and Zacharaiah(1962) observe that in India, the propensity to migrate to

urban areas is much higher among the literate as opposed to illiterates. Similar
observations have also been made by Green wood (1971), Biplab Dasagupta and Roy
Laishley (1975), Bora (1987), Raju (1987) and Joshi (1989). Sahota (1963) observes,
that in Brazil, the educational level has a significant, positive relation to out­
migration.

Scholars like Kamath (1914), Wattal (1934), Davis (1951), Chandrashekhar (1950),
Gosal (1961), D'Souza (1966), Suprunovich (1971), Mujumdar and Mujumdar (1978),

7
and Singh and Yadava (1981) have opined that a low level of education hinders
migration. Educated people are usually urban oriented, while illiterate migrants

include most of the rural - rural, seasonal and short term workers in mines and

plantations (Connell ct. al 1976).

Family size and family type

The influence of family size and type on migratory behaviour has been dealt with by
many scholars. These studies indicate that extended families show a higher tendency,
than nuclear ones, towards migration. Wilkenning et al (1967) observe that migration is
not likely to occur unless local opportunities are limited, but, given this factor, the

extended family extends its influence whenever it can. The advantage of a broad
structure of such families is that it allows and encourages the migration of its member as a

means of spreading the family's investment opportunities. Raju (1989) has stated that,

living in joint families was not the factor for the individuals to stay in villages, perhaps an

absence of such strong economic motivation among them might be the main reason.

Gupta (1988) observes that the large size of family could be the cause of poverty which,

in turn, compels the members to leave the village to seek better employment (Pathare

et. al 1972 and Wiest 1970).

Contrary to the above statement, Parameshwarappa (1981) observes that a majority of

migrants are from nuclear families. Upton (1967) in his study of six Nigerian villages

opines that the size of family is positively correlated to migration.

Occupation

Bradfield (1973) notices selectivity in rural - urban migration in case of the Huaylas in

Peru, where he found that a considerable percentage of migrants were

agriculturists. Arora and Kumar (1980), Upreti (1981) and Chatterjee (1983) have found
that the majority of migrants hailed from agriculture and agro based works.

8
However, Dhekney (1959) finds that in Hubli city, a majority of the migrants are not
from the agricultural sector.

Hamsaleelavathy (1970) states that, skilled and technical workers are more migratory
than the non-skilled and non - technical. Contrary to the above statements Sen (1960)
observes that, in Calcutta, most of the immigrants are unskilled. Garkovich (1983)
observes that skilled and technically skilled persons are less migratory than non-skilled
and non- technical persons.

Land ownership

It is generally assumed that out-migration from villages is caused by unequal

distribution and scarcity of land. Also, that the poorest, the landless and those holding
the lowest position in the social hierarchy of villages have the greatest tendency to
migrate. Studies by Scudder and Anderson (1954), Hill (1972), Schimid (1967), Gupta
(1988) and Sharma (1982) have revealed that there exists a certain relationship
between the extent of land the individual/ family holdings and their propensity to
migrate.

Ryan (1968) finds that, the high rate of mobility of Toarpic migrants is related to non
availability of large tracts of land suitable for cash cropping. Goddard (1973) has noticed,
in villages near Kano in Nigeria, that shortage of agricultural land is an important factor
for migration of labourers.

Studies by Walsh and Trilin (1973) and Rochin (1972) have shown a positive
relationship between high man - land ratio and propensity to migrate. It is apparent
that inadequate extent of land for generating income and consequent poverty may have
stimulated migration.

9
1.3.2 Determinants of migration

The influencing factors of migration are not only numerous but arc ulso very complex,
and vary from place to place and from time to time. According to Kingsley Davis (1964)
the causes of human migration have never been systematically understood. When people
speak of them, they often have in mind either the motives that migrants have or the
conditions they face. It is not always realized that both causes are relevant and
mutually interdependent. Except, when forced to do so (as in slavery), no one migrates
without an objective in view. At the same time, however, the effect of an objective with
respect to migration cannot be known until the local conditions are understood. The
same objective may be satisfied at one time by one kind of behaviour and, at another,
time by an opposite kind, depending on the situation.

Various scholars have presented their opinions on the factors which are responsible
for migration. Some of them have laid importance on economic factors (Thomas 1954
and Gugler 1969). Gameir (1978) has observed that migration is generally based on the
incentives provided by dissatisfaction with one's economic lot. Chapin and Shirley
(1962) emphasises the role of desire for personal advancement as a factor of
migration. Srivastav and Ali (1981) have noticed, in a study of Kols in India, that the
prime cause of migration is absolute poverty.

Kuroda (1972) states that in an uneven distribution of economic activity, the level
among regions and regional reproductive differentials of population tend to reinforce
each other to accelerate migratory movements. Dhesi and Gumbar (1982) have
opined that economic factors like small holding, low income, unemployment and better
prospectus have made people migrate to other regions. Gulliver (1955) and Nair
(1986) express that, in human migration economic necessity is almost always the real

cause.

10
Studies in Africa by various scholars like Gulliver (1955), Cohen (1969), Richard (1954),
Hutton (1966), Hart (1975), Prothero (1966) and Skinner (1963) have found that
economic factors are more important than others.

Stouffer (1940) has opined, that the spatial distance does not hinder the mobility of
people from one place to another, provided better job opportunities are available at
the place of destination. Stone (1973) finds that, in Britain, the migrants from South
Africa immigrated for better employment facilities. Similar observations have also been
made by Dhekney (1959), Chauhan (1966), Sandhu (1969), Stockel (1972), Grewal
and Sidhu (1979), Arora and Kumar (1980), Russel and Strachan (1980), Kaur (1971)
and Musgrove (1963). These scholars hold the view that migration is an answer to
personal predicament, often frustration in work and absence of opportunities for
advancement. Lee (1975) emphasises the factors associated with the area of origin
and destination, intervening obstacles between the place of origin and the place of
destination and personal factors. Hertzeler (1956) opines that the advantages or
disadvantages of the two places act as attractive, or repulsive factors in migration.

The more an individual is poor, landless and socio- economically deprived, the greater are
the chances of his migration from rural to urban areas. Ranga Rao ct. al (1977),
Mukherjee (1979) and Vasudev Rao (1981) opine that most of the capable earners move
out of their native places in pursuit of economically active occupations. Bora (1987)
has found in his study that 77% of workers migrated in search ofjobs.

Sorokin (1932) observes, that a city attracts both special talents and abilities and also a
great number of unambitious pleasure seeking persons. According to Pal (1974) the
relatively better conditions of living and better prospects, in a city, are significant
motivating factors. Parameshwarappa (1981) has found that the decline in home
industries, uneven distribution of resources and periodic droughts were the main cause of
migration. While Ralph Thompison ( 1965) opines that the factors influencing migration
are complex and intertwined.

11
General observations about causes of migration

Ganguli (1947) states, that wider economic, political and cultural factors are
remarkable causes of migration. Bogue (1959) finds that, not only economic factors,
but also social, political, medical and psychological factors can cause migration.
Gupta (1972) opines that the improvement of transport and communication and
increase in educational level have been responsible for increase in migration in recent
years in India. According to Addo (1974), both internal and international migrations
are economic, demographic, environmental, political and, to some extent, religious in
character.

Harvey (1972) and Amin (1975) have observed, that internal migration seems to be
from areas of low level of development to relatively more advanced regions. Gosal
(1961) has indicated, that the present tempo of internal migration is bound to increase in
future as a result of a growing diversification of economic activity, as increasing
degree of commercialization, urbanisation, industrialisation. Improvements in transport
facilities and spread of modem education are also likely to increase the mobility of the
Indian population.

Scholars, like Kamath (1914), D’Souza (1966), Suprunovich (1971), Mujumdar and
Mujumdar (1978), Wattal (1934), Chandrashekhar (1950) and Davis (1951), have also
focused on the social forces of population and mobility, beside stressing economic
factors, caste systems, regional and communal aspects, early marriages, family ties,
diversity in language and culture, low level of education etc., as factors influencing

migration.

The influence of social contact on migration has an important role. Landis (1948) has
noted, that the presence of relatives and friends is an attractive force, in deciding choice
of destination, for a large majority of migrant families and further, that this type of
migratory movement helps immediate social adjustment of the migrants. According to

12
Rao (1986) the social network (ties of kin, caste, village & language) is the most
effective channel of communication which favours decision making in migration. Very
rarely do people move without prior information and a linkage of some kind or the
other. Illsley (1970), in his study in Scotland, found that the presence of friends and
relatives already living there has influenced migration. Nicholson (1980) has
noticed, that distance does not affect migration when migrants have friends and
relatives in the place of destination. The role of social contact in migration has been
upheld by the scholars like Russell and Strachan (1980), Dhesi and Gumbar (1982) and
Williams and Mcmillion (1983).

Uhlenberg (1973) states, that people having more community affiliation and kinship
ties are comparatively less mobile than otherwise. Davis (1951) has stated, that
homesickness itself is not a cause, but is a by product, of the interplay of various
socio-economic factors and forces which retard migration.

Wyon and Gordan (1971) have noted that, in some regions, the social custom may
either control migration or promote it. Among the farmers of Punjab, the elder sons were
kept away from schools so that they might remain on the family farm, while the younger
sons were provided some schooling as a preparation for migration.

Natural calamities like drought, flood and widespread poverty also affect migration,
largely in rural areas (Stoltman-1971, Saxena-1973, Simic-1973, Bhakoo-1978 and
Gupta-1980).

Militancy in recent years has caused many people to migrate from one place to another.
An article in a monthly journal called Frontline (Dec 1990) has described, that due to
militants activities, about 15,000 families have migrated from Punjab State to Delhi
during the period 1986 to 1990.

13
Hilda (1965) states, that political factors are also one of the determinants of migration.
He has found that in West Africa, during the pre-colonial era, the migration rate was low,
but during the colonial period the rate of migration had increased due to several
political policies for developing transport and communication. One of the largest mass
migrations in history, essentially due to religious - political causes, took place in 1947
when the Indian sub-continent was divided into India and Pakistan (Philips and Wain
Wright -1970).

1.3.3 The problem of immigrant adjustment in new socio- economic milieu

Rao (1986) has stated, that the immigration of agricultural labourers, either seasonal
or permanent, in other rural area gives rise to different sets of problems related to their
condition of work, nature of their exploitation by middle men and farmers, their
relationship with the locals and the impact on their origin. Arora and Kumar (1980),
Russell and Strachan (1980) and Rank and Voss (1982) have stated, that the migrant
farm workers experience adjustment problems in the new social ecosystem due to their
socio- cultural stereotypes. They have a low level of social participation, face non-co-
operation and cool behavioural treatment from the locals and experience feelings of
relative deprivation. According to Richard (1976) and Gupta (1988), this type of
attitude can lead to conflict at the place of destination. Weinberg (1973) believes that
the adjustment of migrants to the new environment is related to the level of
exploitation. He opines that many people who migrate against their will, sabotage
themselves unconsciously. That is why most of the migrant communities have to face
certain problems of social adjustment. According to Aurora (1967) social adjustment is
a two way process because it involves the attitude of migrants as well as that of the host

community.

Belvin (1971) opines that the feeling of relative deprivation among the migrants may
lead to expansion in power structure, either by immigrants or by locals. Ducocestella

14
(1970) states that the hostile attitude of locals causes relative deprivation among the
migrants.

Zacharaiah( 1968) opines, that the problems of adjustment depend upon the duration of
the stay of immigrants at any place. Punekar (1974) and Raju (1989) observe that
knowing one another’s language can bring people together and promote an
understanding between locals and immigrants. Fitzpatric (1975) believes that relatives
and friends who migrated earlier play an important role in the process of adjustment and
integration. Sharma (1982) and Bora (1987) have noticed that the problem of
accommodation at the destination hinders the immigrant's proper adjustment in a new
location.

According to Reddy (1971), as the duration of stay extends, and migrants adopt new
cultural values to integrate with the new social setting, they find it difficult to retain
relations with their native community. Levine (1973) and Vidhyasagar (1986) observe
that the native ties weaken the duration of stay of immigrants. However, Gugler (1969)
opines that Africans immigrants, by virtue of their dual living system, are loyal both to
place of destination and origin. Scholars like Bhakoo (1978), Gupta (1988) Joshi (1989)
and Raju (1988) have noticed, that the migrants undergo some changes in a new social
setting such as food, habit, dress and language etc. in the process of adjustment
with the host community.

1.3.4 The method of recruitment and wages of immigrants

According to Arora and Kumar (1980), labourers in Punjab were recruited from Bihar
by local agents and traders and they were supplied to the farmers after charging a
commission of Rs.300/- to 400/-. As a result, the farmers did not see the need to pay
the first two months salary to the labourers. In this way, a big chunk of the potential
earnings of migrants was taken away by these agents and traders. Scholars like Gupta

15
(1988), Rao (1986) and Patel (1987) observe that immigrant labourers, to some extent,
were exploited by middlemen during recruitment.

The movements of people from one place to another has been for both economic and
non-economic reasons. The migrants have to face many problems in the new social
setting such as, housing, nature of work, working conditions and wages, method of
recruitment and the non adjustment with the locals, the diversity of language, culture
and relative deprivations etc. However, the adjustability of the migrants in the new area
increases with the duration of stay in the destination due to the interaction with new
values and norms etc. in course of time, and to some extent, the problem of adjustment
also arises with the place of origin.

16
 Table 1.1 Internal Migration in India

Census Year Percent of persons enumerated in a state or province different

from the locality in which they were bom to total population.
1891 3.8
1901 3.3
1911 3.6
1921 3.7
1931 3.6
1941 -

1951 3.0
1961 3.3

Source: Kingsly Devis (1951), Ashish Bose (1978) and Census of India 1971.

Table 1.2 Percentage of total migration by streams in India

Type Of 1961 1971 1981

Migration % Distribution of % Distribution of % Distribution of migration
migration migration streams in total migration
streams in total migration streams in total migration
Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Rural - Rural 73.7 56.7 81.3 71.3 53.5 78.8 65.2 45.7 73.3
Urban - Rural 3.6 4.6 3.2 4.9 6.1 4.4 6.0 7.0 5.6
Rural - Urban 14.6 25.7 9.7 15.0 26.1 10.3 17.7 30.0 12.5
Urban - Urban 8.1 13.0 5.8 8.8 14.3 6.5 11.1 17.3 8.6
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Sources : Census of India 1971 Series -1 India, Part II special. All India Census Table
(Estimated) on one percent sampling data Delhi P. 137-64. The Figures are provisional,
census of India 1981 Series -1 India Part - V A & B Migration Tables.